In Formula One, Crashing Isn’t Cheap

After two controversial opening lap incidents in the last few weeks, there’s been much talk heading into the summer break about the cost of crashing in Formula One. Sadly for them, Red Bull Racing has been at the centre of massive accidents at Silverstone and the Hungaroring, both of which were triggered by their championship rivals at Mercedes. 

At the British Grand Prix, Max Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton were locked in a drag race as they charged towards Copse Corner (Turn 9), neither driver giving an inch as they fought over the lead on the opening lap. Hamilton held the inside line into the fast right-hander and, in doing so, made contact with Verstappen, whose Red Bull machine was sent skidding into the tire barrier at an estimated speed of 290 km/h (180 mph). Unsurprisingly, Verstappen’s car sustained terminal damage, as his impact with the barrier was recorded as having taken place at 51g.

Two weeks later at the Hungarian Grand Prix, another chaotic opening lap ended in more carnage, this time thanks to slippery track conditions. Rain had fallen in the buildup to the race, making for a slick rundown into Turn 1. Mercedes’ Valtteri Bottas had a poor launch when the lights went out, and as he braked into Turn 1, he missed his mark and went sliding into the back of Lando Norris’ McLaren. This started a disastrous chain reaction, as Norris was forced into the path of Verstappen’s Red Bull, while Bottas slid into Verstappen’s teammate Sergio Perez, forcing them both to retire from the race.

With Red Bull’s cars sustaining heavy damage in the last two grand prix through little fault of their own, team boss Christian Horner called out Formula One’s new cost cap. Under the new set of financial regulations, the cost cap limits teams from spending more than $147.5m each season on operations. This cap covers the full costs of running a team, save for a few exceptions, but includes the cost of building replacement parts when fixing damaged cars. 

Horner claimed that recent incidents have cost Red Bull Racing approximately £1.8m ($2.1m) over the last month, and he believes that the new cost cap needs to be examined.

“Obviously you’ve got to look at what’s within the cap. It’s spare parts; the engines as well are particularly concerning. I think we need to revisit this with the FIA as it’s something that can affect all teams, not just Red Bull.”

Christian Horner, Team Principal of Red Bull Racing

As Horner pointed out, it’s an issue that has more than just his own team alarmed. Ferrari were also involved in the opening lap pileup in Hungary, with Lance Stroll’s Aston Martin smashing into the side of Charles Leclerc’s car at Turn 1. Leclerc was forced to retire immediately from the race due to the damage.

The incident led to comments from Ferrari team principal Mattia Binotto, who not only called for similar cost cap changes, but also suggested that the team guilty of triggering an accident should be the one to front the repair bill.

“If we look at the crash of Max and Lewis [at Silverstone], and obviously if you’re not guilty, having such damages in the budget cap is something which is even more of a consequence now. Should we add exemptions? I’m not sure that is the solution. I think it may be very difficult to police. But I think that what we may consider, that if a driver is guilty, then the team of that driver should pay at least to the other teams for the damages and repairs, that will make the driver more responsible.”

Mattia Binotto, Team Principal of Scuderia Ferrari

Binotto’s suggestion may seem like a cut-and-dry solution at first. Team A causes an accident where both Team A and Team B crash. Team A pays for the damages for both teams, and Team B doesn’t pay a cent. However, like many things in motorsport, there’s a lot of grey area to swim through.

An important aspect to look at is how this proposed change in the regulations would impact the on-track product. It would surely satisfy Red Bull and Ferrari, providing a seemingly fair method of dealing with these incidents from a financial point of view. However, it may have an unintended negative impact. For argument’s sake, it could be claimed that such a change would cause drivers to be more cautious when fighting for positions on-track, eliminating many of the riveting battles that fans yearn for on Sundays. 

I certainly acknowledge that this is a difficult situation for the FIA—Formula One’s governing body—to be stuck with. In the name of fair play, a team shouldn't incur a penalty when fitting replacement parts in many of these cases. However, motorsport isn’t always fair, and while it would be nice to see a change to this rule, I’m sure the FIA considers the situation as one that there is no simple solution for. 

The cost cap could, in theory, be expanded to accommodate for the costs associated with these incidents, but in my mind, teams should still have to pay their own bills. It’s the cost of competition, and fans don’t deserve to see a decrease of on-track action because drivers are too busy thinking of repair invoices. What’s more, we need to consider the impact this change would have on smaller, privately run customer teams, those without steady financial backing from large manufacturers like Mercedes or Ferrari. If a customer outfit like Haas or Williams caused a collision like the one we saw in Hungary, could they survive the rest of the season after paying for the damages? It would certainly put them into financial trouble over time, forcing them to tiptoe through every grand prix weekend until the end of the season. These teams are already having to make every dollar count as it is, so any further strain could see them fold while discouraging other new entrants from chasing their Formula One dream.

Perhaps there is a middle ground? A happy medium where the guilty team chips in partially, but not fully for repair costs in these cases? This seems more logical to me than having them cover the entire bill, but it also leads to other questions like how that partial value is determined. And beyond that lies what is an even more contentious argument, which is how “fault” is ultimately defined in each scenario.

To me, this isn’t what racing should be about, and I think many fans would agree. The FIA has made strides towards increasing on-track battles next year by changing the aerodynamic design of the 2022 cars, with hopes of making them more conducive to racing in closer proximity to each other. To see them undo those efforts by forcing drivers to reign in their natural instincts out of fears of sending their boss a huge repair bill would be, to me, a real shame.